You are here

A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.

The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet, police said.

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

You just can't make this stuff up.

"Once you can accept the universe is matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy." -- Albert Einstein

She's a sinner Stylez. It's not about making herself a better person, it's about her appearing pure in front of almighty God. I know that argument isn't made in the story, but you know that was the basis the official used who charged her.

She's a sinner Stylez. It's not about making herself a better person, it's about her appearing pure in front of almighty God. I know that argument isn't made in the story, but you know that was the basis the official used who charged her.

I totally disagree with that at all - for one, that's entirely unfounded speculation (and just a reminder, I'm agnostic, no dog in that fight). Secondly, I agree with Stylez altogether - she needs counseling, not a criminal record.

Anyway, my argument is this - if we don't want what is legally considered "child pornography" on the internet, and presumably we don't, then we can't allow "children" to put up their own pictures. It's never occurred to me before that this was a problem, but obviously it is. If you don't want it on the internet, then you have to keep anyone from putting it up, including "children". I'm not really sure what alternatives were available to the authorities, within the framework of the law.

That said, again, she clearly needs counseling, and I hope that they work out a deal where she voluntarily stops this, gets help, and has any charges dropped.

And a note on criminal records - wouldn't stick with her once she turned 18 anyway. In our insanity, in the US a 16 year-old who is a repeat rapist has his record effectively expunged when he turns 18, which would keep potentially critical information out of the hands of the police and any court trying to properly convict and sentence him.

Anyway, my argument is this - if we don't want what is legally considered "child pornography" on the internet, and presumably we don't, then we can't allow "children" to put up their own pictures. It's never occurred to me before that this was a problem, but obviously it is. If you don't want it on the internet, then you have to keep anyone from putting it up, including "children". I'm not really sure what alternatives were available to the authorities, within the framework of the law.

I agree with Fedaykin, child pornography is illegal and it shouldn't matter if the child is the one doing it to herself. I also agree she should get counseling and I believe the parents of the child should be charged with something like criminal negligence. In fact the main question everyone should be asking is where were the parents!

"Can I have a job? I donut have much experiences, butt I always use an spellchecker spellchecker on my articles." - Sway

Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria since 2005!

Anyway, my argument is this - if we don't want what is legally considered "child pornography" on the internet, and presumably we don't, then we can't allow "children" to put up their own pictures. It's never occurred to me before that this was a problem, but obviously it is. If you don't want it on the internet, then you have to keep anyone from putting it up, including "children". I'm not really sure what alternatives were available to the authorities, within the framework of the law.

I agree with Fedaykin, child pornography is illegal and it shouldn't matter if the child is the one doing it to herself. I also agree she should get counseling and I believe the parents of the child should be charged with something like criminal negligence. In fact the main question everyone should be asking is where were the parents!

Is that really a road we want to go down, though? Criminally charging parents for the actions of their children is a bad road to go down. Especially when you're dealing with something like this. Did she have shelter and food? I don't know if criminal negligence really extends to full awareness of what your daughter does online. I'd say pretty much every parent is in the dark about the full range of things their 15 year old does online. If this girl's parents are culpable, why not the parents of the 15 year old boy who illegally views porn, rather than making it? Isn't that boy technically committing corruption of a minor - himself?
The point is that - in my view - child pornography is illegal not because pictures of naked 15 year olds are themselves damaging, but because it's taken as a given that the pictures are taken through force or coercion. If that isn't the case, I'm not sure it should be a criminal issue for anybody, let alone the girl who we as a society have decided to view as a minor, and thus too young to make rational decisions. And certainly not her parents. As well to charge teachers for school violence.

I can understand the child pron charges if that is where we are going as a society, but the abuse of children is just straight up bizarre. That would be akin to someone being charged with aggravated battery for smacking him/herself in the head.

Well, actually, I'd argue that the circulation of child porn should be prohibited, period. It's in the nature of a minor not to be able to defend all their personal rights, including that to their privacy, themselves.

Still, I agree with Morro's opinion. The whole thing should've been taken up with the service provider hosting the images who would've been legally bound to remove them once he'd been notified. End of problem.

And if I haven't seen further, it's because those bloody giants blocked my sight.

In fact the main question everyone should be asking is where were the parents!

I don't see this ... Essentially any parent with a Internet enabled computer is culpable in what their teenage (see Kat's many explanations of the teenage mutant for my view on them) child does when they are not around? So at what age should I then remove all computers from the house just to make absolutely certain the temptation isn't there? It's a scary and dangerous world out there but unless you completely shelter your children from all outside contact then I can't see how you expect the modern parent to take responsibility for every action their child makes past a certain age. I try and keep the games my kids play at home to the ratings system (tough to juggle with a 5 yr old who should play E rated games and a 9 yr old who can play E+10 games) but when all of his friends are talking about the Mature games their parents let them play it makes me think I'm being pretty strict. It's already hard enough to balance parental responsibility with the desire to give your kid's the freedom to be happy ... I just don't see how a 15 year old girls parents should be held accountable for her actions unless it's pretty obvious they knowingly let her do it.

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." Twain

I'd disagree here. I feel that child pron just encourages and normalises a base desire in certain men - which in some cases can lead to, or expedite the occurrence of actual abuse.

Whether the pictures were as a result of abuse or not is irrelevant, if they become one of the steps on the path to abuse for someone else, somewhere else.

I was about to make the same comment, but then remembered that pedophilia is not so much an acquired taste as the symptom of a mental deficiency that makes you search for clearly weaker mates. That desire for overwhelming power has been seeded long ago, often by child abuse in the peodphilian's own biography. The existence of pictures on the net is not really going to change anything there.

And if I haven't seen further, it's because those bloody giants blocked my sight.

I'd disagree here. I feel that child pron just encourages and normalises a base desire in certain men - which in some cases can lead to, or expedite the occurrence of actual abuse.

Whether the pictures were as a result of abuse or not is irrelevant, if they become one of the steps on the path to abuse for someone else, somewhere else.

I was about to make the same comment, but then remembered that pedophilia is not so much an acquired taste as the symptom of a mental deficiency that makes you search for clearly weaker mates. That desire for overwhelming power has been seeded long ago, often by child abuse in the peodphilian's own biography. The existence of pictures on the net is not really going to change anything there.

I suppose (hope) you're right - but I tend to feel there is no clear and singular cause for any complex psychological condition, especially when it involves an individuals sexuality. I just assume that exposure to a sexual stimulus feeds into a desire to be more exposed to said stimulus. (Sexual pleasure being one of the few things which isn't governed by the usual laws of diminishing returns.)

It may not in itself cause someone to become a child abuser, just that it could be one of the myriad of of components leading to an abusive personality. It's just not healthy - regardless of where it comes from.

Having said that, the fact that the girl was charged with child abuse is ridiculous. Some charge involving the dissemination of illegal material maybe, but the idea you couldn't give consent to yourself...?!

So if 2 15 year olds are having sex does that mean they are statutorily raping each other?

Actually, as far as I know that's often the case -- it's just a matter of being able to determine which participant was the aggressor (if there was one). Lots of drama with high schoolers changing their minds afterwards and calling the Po-Po.

Hypatian wrote:

Words... are a big deal.

Enix wrote:

The only way writers are going to get better is if they get some decent damned editing.

Here is a case in which a 13 year old GIRL is charged as both the perpetrator and victim of sexual assault of a 12 year old BOY, after they had consensual sex. Yes, you read that correctly. It's absolutely insane.

Also, is looking at a 15 year old girl pedophilia? I mean, an adult having sex with 15 year old should be illegal because it's predatory. But is it pedophilia? I think a 15 year old is too close to a grown woman to truly qualify as a child, in the sexual sense. I think true pedophiles are not interested in something as old as 15. A grown man who sleeps with a 15 year old is intensely creepy, but is he a sexual deviant, or just a legal deviant?

"-Philia" just means you love it -- in this sense it means "love" in a creepy way. If you dig looking at little girls, that's being a pedophile. I guess, though, that the legal concern is more with acting on that impulse instead of trying to legislate thought crime.

Hypatian wrote:

Words... are a big deal.

Enix wrote:

The only way writers are going to get better is if they get some decent damned editing.

On a related point, a Florida Appeals court upheld a child pornography conviction for two teenagers who photographed themselves having sex. The interesting part of this case is that while they were prosecuted for violating child pornography statues, the sexual act itself is not illegal under Florida law.

The appellate court made the wrong decision here, in that their decision was made on the basis that by the girl e-mailing the photos to her boyfriend, the material may somehow have been intercepted. The dissenting judge points out this is analogous to saying that the girl would have been equally guilty if she printed the photos, kept them in her purse, and her purse was stolen. This appears to me to be far outside the intent of child pornography laws.

'One for the money, two for the show, three for the girl that has got no soul' - Elvis, Ashby and The Oceanns

On a related point, a Florida Appeals court upheld a child pornography conviction for two teenagers who photographed themselves having sex. The interesting part of this case is that while they were prosecuted for violating child pornography statues, the sexual act itself is not illegal under Florida law.

The appellate court made the wrong decision here, in that their decision was made on the basis that by the girl e-mailing the photos to her boyfriend, the material may somehow have been intercepted. The dissenting judge points out this is analogous to saying that the girl would have been equally guilty if she printed the photos, kept them in her purse, and her purse was stolen. This appears to me to be far outside the intent of child pornography laws.

Wow. Florida is just...whacked.

If your porn isn't stashed in a TrueCrypt volume, then you're probably not into weird enough stuff. - *Legion*
Better to reign in P&C than serve in Everything Else. - Tanglebones